The prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in rheumatology.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common in rheumatology due to the complex nature of managing chronic autoimmune diseases. To date there has been limited research into the impact of polypharmacy on rheumatology patients. In this article we reviewed the literature to characterize the prevalence of polypharmacy and its effect on patients. In addition, we have highlighted some key drug-drug interactions to consider involving DMARDs as well as complementary and alternative medicines. There is emerging evidence demonstrating that polypharmacy contributes to adverse outcomes and alters treatment response. This association is best described in RA and is less clear in other patient cohorts. It is also unclear whether polypharmacy is directly harmful or just a surrogate marker for other factors affecting outcomes. Rheumatologists should be aware of the risk of polypharmacy as well as specific drug-drug interactions that can occur in managing chronic autoimmune disease.

Improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with risankizumab: analysis of the Phase 3 trial KEEPsAKE 2.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the impact of 24-week risankizumab (RZB) versus placebo (PBO) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response to one or two biologics (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). METHODS: Patients in the Phase 3 trial, KEEPsAKE 2, were randomised (1:1) to RZB 150 mg or PBO by subcutaneous injection. PROs assessed: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Patient's Assessment of Pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), Patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-PsA (WPAI-PsA). Least squares mean change from baseline at week 24 was compared between RZB versus PBO by mixed-effects repeated regression modelling. RESULTS: At week 24, RZB versus PBO treatment resulted in significant differences (95% CIs) in mean change from baseline in ranked secondary endpoints SF-36 physical component summary score (3.9 (2.4 to 5.3); p<0.001) and FACIT-Fatigue (2.2 (0.6 to 3.9); p=0.009) and improvements in pain (-8.1 (-12.8 to -3.5)), PtGA (-8.8 (-13.5 to -4.2)) and EQ-5D-5L index (0.08 (0.04 to 0.11)) and VAS (5.9 (1.9 to 9.8)) (all nominal p<0.01). More RZB-treated versus PBO-treated patients reported improvements from baseline at week 24 in 7 of 8 SF-36 subdomains (nominal p<0.05). At week 24, more RZB-treated versus PBO-treated patients reported improvements in 3 of 4 WPAI-PsA domains (nominal p≤0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall, RBZ treatment resulted in improvements in pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life and ability to perform work in Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR patients with PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03671148.

Effect of upadacitinib on reducing pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: post hoc analysis of three randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on pain outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) across 3 randomised trials (SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 for PsA; SELECT-AXIS 1 for AS). METHODS: Patients were randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo (all 3 studies), or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction from baseline in patient global assessment of pain and other end points. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction in pain end points as early as week 2; these improvements with upadacitinib were generally sustained or increased through year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 64%/48%, 58%/42% and 38%/22%, respectively; SELECT-AXIS 1 study: 76%, 72% and 54%). Results were similar with adalimumab in PsA 1 (59%, 49% and 32%). Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg were able to reach a similar level of improvement as the continuous upadacitinib groups by year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 46%-60%, 35%-49% and 15%-34%; AS study: 83%, 72% and 46%). Results were similar with other pain end points. CONCLUSION: Rapid and sustained improvements in pain outcomes across several end points were consistently shown with upadacitinib over 1 year in patients with active PsA or AS who had either inadequate response to prior non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (PsA studies) or were biologic-naïve with inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (AS study).

Biological Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview for the Clinician.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and poses a substantial healthcare burden on both the individual and society. One of the most significant shifts in the RA therapeutic landscape has occurred with the introduction of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). There are five classes of bDMARDs currently available, each with a different molecular target and subtle differences in their efficacy and safety profile. This review also describes the "real-world" use of bDMARDs and how they fit into the overall RA treatment guidelines.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to csDMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: an open-label study close to clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in clinical practice in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients in the 24-week, open-label ACT-SURE study who had at least a moderate EULAR response by week 24 and were from a participating country were eligible for this long-term extension (LTE); the patients continued to receive TCZ 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks as monotherapy or in combination with ≥ 1 csDMARD for up to an additional 108 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Effectiveness endpoints included Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) responses, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Of the 1102 patients who completed the core 24-week study, 934 participated in the LTE; the median exposure to TCZ was 64.3 weeks. From baseline to the end of the LTE, AEs and SAEs occurred in 90% and 9% of patients, respectively. The overall event rates (95% CI) of AEs and SAEs were 406.5 per 100 patient-years (PY) (395.5, 417.8) and 8.8 per 100 PY (7.3, 10.6), respectively. Mean (SD) improvement in DAS28 was 4.12 (1.18), P < 0.0001. The DAS28 remission rates, ACR response rates, and PRO scores were maintained during the LTE study. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, TCZ as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in patients with moderate to severe RA.

Tapering versus steady-state methotrexate in combination with tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Objective: To explore whether tocilizumab + tapering MTX has comparable efficacy and safety vs tocilizumab + stable MTX in adult RA patients with inadequate response to MTX. Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled non-inferiority study involved patients with severe active RA [28-joint DAS (DAS28) >5.1] who had initiated tocilizumab + MTX at the study start. Patients received open-label tocilizumab (8 mg/kg i.v. every 4 weeks) and open-label MTX. At week 24, patients achieving good/moderate EULAR response were randomized to group A (double-blind MTX taper) or group B (double-blind MTX maintenance); both arms continued open-label tocilizumab. Primary analysis was the proportion of patients maintaining good/moderate EULAR response from week 24 to 60. Results: The study stopped early due to low recruitment, although the predetermined non-inferiority criteria were still met; 427 patients were enrolled to the open-label phase at week 0. At week 24, EULAR good/moderate response was achieved in 272 individuals (64.4%) who were randomized, 136 in each arm (36% withdrew/were not eligible). Additionally, 45.0% achieved DAS28 ⩽3.2, 33.5% achieved remission (DAS28 <2.6) and 64.2% had a DAS28 change ⩾1.2. After week 24 randomization, the proportion of patients maintaining good/moderate EULAR response to week 60 was significantly greater for MTX taper vs stable MTX (76.5 vs 65.4%; P = 0.036), and since the lower limit of the 95% CI was >0.9, the pre-determined criteria for non-inferiority was fulfilled despite reduced recruitment. Safety analysis revealed no unexpected tocilizumab safety signals. Conclusions: Tapering MTX in patients with RA receiving tocilizumab was non-inferior to continuing stable MTX in maintaining a good/moderate EULAR response. There were no unexpected safety signals; tocilizumab and MTX therapy was generally well tolerated in both groups. Trial registration number: EudraCT 2011-005260-20.

Impact of Participation in the Adalimumab (Humira) Patient Support Program on Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Course: Results from the PASSION Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with adalimumab (ADA) are offered a proprietary patient support program (PSP, AbbVie Care®). The main objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of ADA on RA treatment course over time in the context of PSP utilization. METHODS: PASSION was a 78-week post-marketing observational study of RA patients with an insufficient response to ≥1 DMARD newly initiating ADA in routine clinical care that was conducted in Europe, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Australia. One prior biologic DMARD was allowed. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID; improvement of ≥0.22 compared to baseline) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at week 78. Additionally, multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated over time. Patients were categorized based on their participation in the PSP: ever (PSP users) vs. never (PSP non-users). Safety events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Overall, 42.8% of PSP users achieved the MCID in HAQ-DI at week 78 (improvement of at least 0.22 compared to baseline). From 1025 enrolled, 48.7% of patients were PSP users while treated with ADA. The percentage of patients achieving MCID in the HAQ-DI was higher in PSP users vs. PSP non-users (48.1 vs. 37.8%) at week 78 (p < 0.001, NRI). Most of the studied clinical outcomes and PROs showed significant improvements (p < 0.05) from baseline to week 78 favoring PSP users over PSP non-users. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who initiated ADA, improvements in clinical, functional, and PROs were achieved in real-world settings with significantly greater improvements among PSP users in comparison with PSP non-users. FUNDING: AbbVie. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01383421.

Update on biosimilars in rheumatology.

Biologic agents have become indispensable in the management of autoimmune disease particularly rheumatological conditions. The lives of countless individuals have been improved following treatment with these drugs. Unfortunately, their cost prohibits more widespread use around the globe. This critical issue has been addressed by the introduction of biosimilars into the market. These therapies have been developed to resemble the originator molecule as closely as possible and to increase competition in the therapy area thus allowing costs to be reduced. Our review is intended to offer an update on biosimilars including logistic considerations on their introduction into routine practice.

Immune reconstitution 20 years after treatment with alemtuzumab in a rheumatoid arthritis cohort: implications for lymphocyte depleting therapies.

BACKGROUND: Alemtuzumab, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, was administered to patients with RA between 1991 and 1994. We have followed a cohort of recipients since that time and previously reported significant delays in immune reconstitution. Here we report >20 years of follow-up data from this unique cohort. METHOD: Surviving alemtuzumab recipients were age, sex and disease duration matched with RA controls. Updated mortality and morbidity data were collected for alemtuzumab recipients. For both groups antigenic responses were assessed following influenza, Pneumovax II and combined diphtheria/tetanus/poliovirus vaccines. Circulating cytokines and lymphocyte subsets were also quantified. RESULTS: Of 16 surviving alemtuzumab recipients, 13 were recruited: 9 recipients underwent a full clinical assessment and 4 had case notes review only. Since our last review 10 patients had died from causes of death consistent with long-standing RA, and no suggestion of compromised immune function. Compared with controls the alemtuzumab cohort had significantly reduced CD4+ and CD8+ central memory T-cells, CD5+ B cells, naïve B cells and CD19+CD24hiCD38hi transitional (putative regulatory) B cells. Nonetheless vaccine responses were comparable between groups. There were significantly higher serum IL-15 and IFN-γ levels in the alemtuzumab cohort. IL-15 levels were inversely associated with CD4+ total memory and central memory T cells. CONCLUSION: After 20 years the immune system of alemtuzumab recipients continues to show differences from disease controls. Nonetheless mortality and morbidity data, alongside vaccination responses, do not suggest clinical immune compromise. As lymphodepleting therapies, including alemtuzumab, continue to be administered this work is important with regard to long-term immune monitoring and stages of immune recovery.

Tetrahydrobiopterin Supplementation Improves Endothelial Function But Does Not Alter Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic inflammatory condition associated with increased cardiovascular risk that may be due to underlying endothelial dysfunction and subsequent aortic stiffening. We hypothesized that supplementation with tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) would recouple endothelial nitric oxide synthase and thus improve endothelial function and consequently reduce aortic stiffness. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted 2 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover studies examining 2 separate regimens: an acute regimen, with a single dose of BH4 400 mg versus placebo (n=18), and a short-term regimen, composed of a 1-week treatment with BH4 400 mg once daily versus placebo (n=15). Flow-mediated dilatation and aortic pulse wave velocity were studied 4 times, before and after each treatment phase. Acute BH4 supplementation led to an improvement of flow-mediated dilatation, whereas placebo had no effect (mean±SD of effect difference 2.56±4.79%; P=0.03). Similarly, 1-week treatment with BH4 improved endothelial function, but there was no change with placebo (mean±SD of effect difference 3.50±5.05%; P=0.02). There was no change in aortic pulse wave velocity following acute or short-term BH4 supplementation or placebo (mean±SD of effect difference: acute 0.09±0.67 m/s, P=0.6; short-term 0.03±1.46 m/s, P=0.9). CONCLUSION: Both acute and short-term supplementation with oral BH4 improved endothelial function but not aortic stiffness. This result suggests that BH4 supplementation may be beneficial for patients with rheumatoid arthritis by improving endothelial dysfunction and potentially reducing risk of cardiovascular disease. There appears to be no causal relationship between endothelial function and aortic stiffness, suggesting that they occur in parallel, although they may share common risk factors such as inflammation.

A Systematic Review of Factors Associated with Non-Adherence to Treatment for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence impacts negatively on patient health outcomes and has associated economic costs. Understanding drivers of treatment adherence in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is key for the development of effective strategies to tackle non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with treatment non-adherence across diseases in three clinical areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in PubMed, Science Direct, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980 to February 14, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if they included patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, or psoriasis and included statistics to examine associations of factors with non-adherence. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by the first reviewer using a standardized 23-item form and verified by a second/third reviewer. Quality assessment was carried out for each study using a 16-item quality checklist. RESULTS: 73 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Demographic or clinical factors were not consistently associated with non-adherence. Limited evidence was found for an association between non-adherence and treatment factors such as dosing frequency. Consistent associations with adherence were found for psychosocial factors, with the strongest evidence for the impact of the healthcare professional-patient relationship, perceptions of treatment concerns and depression, lower treatment self-efficacy and necessity beliefs, and practical barriers to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While examined in only a minority of studies, the strongest evidence found for non-adherence were psychosocial factors. Interventions designed to address these factors may be most effective in tackling treatment non-adherence.

Biologic therapy for inflammatory arthritis and latent tuberculosis: real world experience from a high prevalence area in the United Kingdom.

Biologic therapies have resulted in a sea change in the management of inflammatory arthritis; however, a higher risk of opportunistic infection, particularly tuberculosis (TB), is well recognised. This has led to the development of TB screening guidelines. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of latent TB in patients prescribed biologic therapy in an endemic area (prevalence of TB 50/100,000) and to assess the risk of subsequent reactivation. Retrospective case note review of all patients with inflammatory arthritis ever prescribed biologic therapy between 1998 and 2014 at our centre. Two hundred ninety-nine patients (109 men, 190 women) who had ever been prescribed biologic therapy over a 16-year period were included. Mean age upon commencing the biologic therapy was 51 years. Two hundred eighteen (73 %) patients were Caucasian with remaining from ethnic minorities. Two hundred thirty-nine (80 %) prescriptions were for TNF inhibitors. Median duration of biologic therapy was 4.2 years for those who remained on treatment prior to stopping or switching therapies. During 1998-2007, 112 patients underwent clinical assessment, chest X-ray and check for BCG scar. One patient of Asian origin developed extrapulmonary TB within 6 weeks of adalimumab initiation. Following a year of anti-TB treatment, he restarted the biologic therapy with no ill effects. One hundred eighty-seven participants (who started on biologic therapy between 2008 and 2014) underwent additional interferon gamma release assays (IGRA) testing as part of a new TB screening protocol (T-spot test). Eighteen (10 %) had positive test with normal chest X-rays. Six patients were white, nine of Asian origin and three others. Three Caucasian patients had a borderline result. All had 3 months of isoniazid and rifampicin with simultaneous prescription of biologic agent (13 had TNF antagonist, 5 rituximab and 3 tocilizumab). No cases of active TB infection were observed. Overall prevalence of latent TB in patients with inflammatory arthritis prescribed biologic therapy in an endemic area is 10 %. The risk warrants careful screening and monitoring in all patients. Adherence to strict screening protocol reduces the risk of active TB infection irrespective of the biologic therapy employed.

Comparison of tocilizumab as monotherapy or with add-on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to previous treatments: an open-label study close to clinical practice.

This was an exploratory analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab monotherapy with those of tocilizumab in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Data were from a single-arm, nonrandomized, open-label, 24-week study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in which patients with inadequate responses to DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks plus methotrexate/other DMARD(s) combination therapy. If they were intolerant of methotrexate/other DMARD, patients received tocilizumab monotherapy. Effectiveness endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses (ACR20/50/70/90) and disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28). Of 1,681 patients, 239 received tocilizumab monotherapy, and 1,442 received combination therapy. Methotrexate was the most common DMARD (79%) used in combination therapy. The frequency of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs leading to withdrawal were similar between tocilizumab monotherapy (82.4, 7.9, and 5.4%, respectively) and combination therapy (76.6, 7.8, and 5.1%, respectively). No differences in ACR20/50/70/90 responses were observed between treatment groups (66.9%/43.5%/23.8%/10.0% vs 66.9%/47.2%/26.8%/8.5%, respectively; p > 0.12 for all individual comparisons, including ACR50 propensity score analyses). The decrease in DAS28 was also similar between treatment groups (mean ± standard deviation: -3.41 ± 1.49 for tocilizumab monotherapy vs -3.43 ± 1.43 for combination therapy; p > 0.33 all analyses, including propensity score analyses). Tocilizumab had a comparable safety profile, and was similarly effective, when used as monotherapy or in combination with DMARDs in a broad population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Evaluating the patient with low back pain.

In the UK, low back pain is the most common cause of disability in young adults and every year 6-9% of adults consult their GP about back pain. A thorough history and examination is required to exclude an alternative diagnosis, such as pain arising from the hip or trochanteric bursa and to categorise patients as having: serious spinal pathology, nerve root/radicular pain or non-specific back pain. Inflammatory back pain is often missed, particularly in the early stages when examination may be normal. The primary features are pain arising in patients under 40, thoracolumbar or sacroiliac pain and alternating buttock pain. Stiffness in the early morning and after rest is a hallmark of inflammatory back pain. There may also be peripheral joint involvement with evidence of inflammatory arthritis as well as extra-articular manifestations such as iritis, psoriasis and colitis. Sphincter disturbance leading to loss of bladder or bowel control should also be explored as it is a sign of spinal cord compression or cauda equina syndrome. Both of these are neurosurgical emergencies and need urgent referral for further investigation and possible intervention. The majority of patients with low back pain can be managed in primary care as the pain will usually be self-limiting. Patients with suspected inflammatory back pain should be referred to rheumatology as soon as possible in order to institute early management and prevent long-term deformity and disability. Patients with suspected serious spinal pathology should be referred urgently for further investigation. Red flag symptoms should raise concerns regarding a possible sinister cause such as malignancy and more than one red flag mandates urgent further investigation.

Refining the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: the Benefits of Subcutaneous Tocilizumab.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune condition which affects approximately 1% of the adult population worldwide and is characterized by joint inflammation, with extra-articular features being common. Interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the chief pro-inflammatory cytokines found in the joints and sera of patients with RA. Increased levels of IL-6 correlate with inflammation, disease activity, and radiological damage. RA treatment should focus on minimizing the signs and symptoms of disease (pain, stiffness, and swelling of the joints) and on preventing or minimizing joint damage to preserve functionality and quality of life. The benefits of early, intensive intervention are now acknowledged, with all patients with newly diagnosed, active RA being started on methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy or combination therapy. Lack of efficacy, intolerance, and/or toxicity can lead to discontinuation of this drug, and there is a need for exploring further treatment options. In the UK, patients with persistently high disease activity who have failed at least two conventional disease-modifying agents (DMARDs) including MTX may qualify for biologic therapy. Numerous trials have shown intravenous (IV) tocilizumab (TCZ), a biologic drug targeting and inhibiting IL-6, to be effective for controlling inflammation in RA, with an acceptable safety profile. Its superiority in monotherapy when compared with other biologic agents makes it the drug of choice for patients who are intolerant or have contraindications to traditional DMARDs. However, one of the drawbacks of IV TCZ is the requirement for monthly infusions, which is inherently inconvenient for the patient and associated with increased cost. Subcutaneous (SC) TCZ has now been approved following two clinical trials which showed similar efficacy and safety compared to IV TCZ, and better efficacy compared to placebo (SUMMACTA and BREVACTA trials, respectively). Respiratory infections are the most common side effects in patients receiving SC TCZ. Advantages of SC formulations include convenience and reduced cost compared with IV therapies. Overall, patients tend to have a preference for SC over IV administration of medications. Close monitoring of patients should be undertaken in all cases, paying particular attention to the full blood count, liver enzymes, and cholesterol levels.